₦airaland Forum

Another save by De Gea o.....

Ope o.....

Bruno, calm down with your passes.

Meanwhile, did we just miss a goal?

Expert17:
Changing Taktiks is not by standing up

Para and ginger nko? Even fergie sometimes dey vex commot for him seat

That guy will just sit down in front of a tablet, he wont stand up and para for the boys. Also, see if a change in tactic is necessary.

Nawa o


Offside jare

JayromWrites:
Make Palace score now


You go read long episode of how DDG should have dived 540° to save the ball

But sha, what i know

I no play for albania and Yugoslavia

CapitalCee:
A sitter? What do you mean by a sitter? A header he was distracted by Sakho, or the one that dropped to him unexpectedly? Agenda must agend. So you expect Bruno to score 50 goals in this first half abi?

Haha, but you did not see several misplaced passes from Bruno. If na Pogba now, you will be shouting.....

CapitalCee:
Those are routine saves

Hahaha........you fit no make heaven o....

See dem Bruno fanboys.........Bruno assist, even though he's done everything wrong today. Magwaya missed a sitter, someone said I should calm down.

If a player messes up, please castigate him, and if he does great praise him. Simple!

Expert, you no see De Gea saves o, abi? Very easy saves na.

Be like say Magwaya is cursed. See free header.

Panther7:
If united should lose today trust them to unleash anger on your team on sunday, choose your happiness wisely

Nawa o, overconfidence is not good o. You guys have been saying that we'll kill Chelsea on Sunday, let's take it easy o.

That game is 50-50, forget outcomes of previous games.

KingTom:
Wetin happen again?

He remembered what happened on Monday. It's not easy na.

Ibime:
Yes, they can set capitalisation benchmarks or in FFP case, profitability benchmarks but the accounts on which those benchmarks are aggregated are only subject to IFRS. Whereas it's easier for CBN to tie a bank to capitalisation metrics as those are usually focussed on current assets (usually Cash and <365 Receivables), profit is a more difficult metric to pin down especially in an industry like football whose profit figures are materially affected by disposal gains or losses and who have little short-term correlation between cashflow and profit. A football club could have £100m reduction in Cash and Receivables and still declare £200m profit in the same year. How do you pin that down?

I agree. Most regulators are focused on the balance sheet. Maybe another 'FFP' is needed. Something like cash from operations (CFO) must be between 50 and 70 percent of accounting profit. That way, a club wont over or under-estimate fair values of their players in their balance sheets.

Ibime:
Yes, they may charge a management fee within a Group Structure, or may apportion salaries across the different subs. Infact the management fee structure may allow them to sink overhead losses more safely in UAE than spread it around. How can UEFA regulate that?

Beyond overheads, you would be surprised to find they also put what you would consider traditional OPEX to parent and apportion later. I know of OPEX items for services my company provides to City that gets billed to Parent. It would be interesting to follow those OPEX down the line and see how they are apportioned between parent and subs.

There is never a standard MSA, so yes, you could easily play games and the regulator can do nothing. During a 6-month stint with a UAE-based PE firm, I structured a transaction where there was an arrangement for a holding company to charge fees based on the level of cashflows from the subsidiaries. Essentially, if you as a subsidiary generate more cashflows, you pay a higher tax deductible management fees. Well there could be pushbacks from the tax authorities sha. That one, you will resolve later. time value of money is key.

But then, I thought auditors try to define and check for reasonableness of some of these arrangements/contracts?

Ibime:
I don't think there is any valuation methodology that will work, much less one that will not contravene IFRS guidelines.

Intangible assets can only be revalued with reference to an active market and players contracts are likely too unique to benchmark against an active market. That's why we will carry someone like Drinkwater at his asset value (should be around £16m now ignoring salary element) rather than write him off and declare a £16m loss this year. We'll just let amortisation naturally impair him slowly until the end of his contract.

Well, I believe the income approach will be adopted very soon. You just estimate potential income and costs expected throughout the live of the asset (player's expected playing years) and discount it using an appropriate rate. This is commonly used for fair valuation of intangible assets. And what this means is that there is an acceptable methodology, and independent parties and auditors only need to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions for the estimates. At least, there will be some consistency.

Also, the precedent transactions analysis method will work. I compare Mbappe and Rashford, same age, both play at good clubs, output better for Mbappe, so maybe I can put a relatively lower valuation for Rashford vs Mbappe. Of course, it is quite subjective, but still reasonable.

These clubs should stop playing with their books.

Ibime:
They are a regulator but cannot supercede IFRS standards, neither can they pressure an auditor if an auditor concludes that a transaction complies with IFRS. You cannot have one set of accounts for submission to Government and a different set of accounts for submission to UEFA. Your accounts for Government just need to pass FFP guidelines on the amount of losses you can declare over a period of years. How you make that target is not UEFAs call to dispute so long as auditors and Govt have accepted your accounts. If UEFA suspect fraud, they are welcome to alert Govt but Govt threshold is based in accounting rules of market value, not UEFAs view that Pjanic may have been overpriced for example. This is UEFAs problem - acting outside their jurisdiction with no real legal say over Revenue or Costs recognition in accounts.

I'll give you another example - City Football Group which encompasses various clubs around the globe from Man City to clubs in New York, Australia, Belgium, Uruguay and India. I can almost 100% guarantee that City Directors and managerial level salaries and other overheads will be split across all these clubs even though 95% of those workers time or other overheads will relate to Manchester City. What you then have is that Man City may only carry say 30% of the salary of a CFG Director who spends 95% of his time on Man City and apportion the rest to the other clubs in the group. This would just be another way of stripping out cost from Manchester City books to make them FFP compliant and putting those costs in other clubs where FFP is not an issue. Nothing UEFA will be able to do about that because that all complies with accounting rules.

Well, it depends. I know that central banks have guidelines for banks (re: Capital adequacy and risk management issues). Even though, accounting standards exist, regulators within sectors like banking, insurance, etc. still come up with guidelines which somehow shape financial reporting, and they typically fine sector players for going against the guidelines. Don't forget that the regulators also audit companies, with fines or penalties if necessary.

Your example is quite interesting. City Football Group, I believe is more like a Private Equity firm, with a holding company structure. Most of the employees' costs should be incurred at the holding company level.

True that holding companies tend to get their subsidiaries or portfolio companies pay salaries of their employees......the flexibility from arrangements like this is huge. However, we've also seen arrangements where they just charge management fees to these subsidiaries and/or companies, which essentially cover their costs. In fact, that is exactly what happens these days, I believe.

Ibime:
Each asset (a player's contract) is unique and therefore buying or selling prices are determined by what a buyer is willing to pay first and foremost, and is easily justifiable. Footballers are intangible assets and their value is determined by their age, contract length, buyout clause, desperation of the buying club etc, not to mention popularity of the player like social media following etc.

Juve can easily justify a fading 30 year Pjanic valuation of £60m by pointing at 29 year old Koulibalys valuation of £75m, or Kepas price of £72m. That's an easy one to justify sef. £60m may have even been the value of his buyout clause.

I cannot see any reason why any top-flight footballer will be sold for under £100m and anyone can advise them to restate the value. Auditors are accountants not football scouts and will lose credibility themselves trying to advise on what is not their area of expertise.

Interesting, I hope IFRS releases a standard for sports accounting. Stuffs around impairment of an asset (a player) or trying to figure out fair values of the players need to be addressed ASAP.

Meanwhile, I know precedent transactions also should help, especially in situations where clubs revalue their assets in order to declare unrealised profits. I believe the transfer market is very liquid, they just need to reduce the period, and ensure almost similar characteristics (such as age, current ranking, output from the player) vs reference assets and or transactions.

The sports industry is really massive, special accounting standards are needed. Of course, I know IFRS prefers general standards that are applicable to all industries, but then........

EPL and/or UEFA just need to commission an independent assessment of City deals, just like when you tell one of the big 4 firms (not auditing City) to do an independent review. They can easily nail Man City.

Shebi UEFA is like a regulator to football clubs in Europe?

Ibime:
EPL can't strip them of anything. UEFA and co have got into the problem of trying to play auditors where they have no jurisdiction. Accountants will always meet any FFP target you set, and Football bodies have no jurisdiction to claim those accounts are falsified when they are not the legal auditor of those accounts, nor are they Government who collect tax based on the output of those accounts. They are just paper tiger making noise. You can't change something Auditors and Govt have already accepted. Or do you expect Man City to go back to UK Government and say we lied in our accounts, which carries criminal consequences?

Accountants are always finding ways to inflate short term profit to meet FFP Target, and there's nothing UEFA can do about it.

Take Melo and Pjanic. Barca and Juventus agree the difference between those players is £12m. Melos price should more like £40m and Pjanic more like £28m but they were sold for £72m and £60m respectively.

In accounting, when you sell an asset for more than it's carrying value, you declare profit on disposal.

Ignoring salaries, the carrying value of Melos asset was about £20m based on his initial £30m transfer fee from Gremio and the fact he's run down 2 years of his 6 year contract. If Barca need to meet FFP target, they will just sell Melo for £72m, booking a £52m profit toward meeting FFP, meanwhile their expenditure for this year for Pjanic ignoring salary is only £12m assuming he signed 5 year contract (£60m divided by 5 years).

In simply swapping out Melo for Pjanic, Barca have recorded a net increase in profit of £40m just on that arrangement (£52m profit on disposal for Melo less £12m amortised yearly cost of Pjanics transfer fee) and UEFA can go to hell with their FFP cos the target has been met, and it's legal and follows all accounting standards.

Same thing City did with Danilo and Joao Cancelo in order to meet FFP. How can Cancelo be worth £67m and Danilo be worth £40m. Na just clever accounting to meet FFP.

And auditors are fine with these arrangements?

Are there acceptable valuation methodologies for the assets (players)? I am assuming that external auditors determine fair value (or arm's length value) of the swap transactions, which means they could ask management to make adjustments in their books to reflect the true state of the deals. Also, auditors can still rely on management's estimates, they just need to verify/be comfortable with the valuation model.

See dem mofos blaming different players. No need to talk about the manager now, since he is the best thing after slice bread. Agendas must agendate.

nani667:
Basically Ole in a nutshell.. What are the odds that man's will end up bottling top 4...exactly the same as last season, dude came in and went on an incredible run, literally closed the gap and caught up with the other teams the race for top 4,only to end up Bottling in the most hopeless fashion... It is like Ole is allergic to Champion's League

#OleOUT

I agree with you. The fuvker already messed up 8 times this season.....

Last season's was also very painful, good run only to lose matches against Westham, Norwich and others. Why not figure out how to motivate your players in situations when we need to get the wins, now it's beginning to look like the wins in the past 2-3 weeks are useless.

I just dont like OGS mehn, I don't know why, he is so slow and stup1d!

handelex:
Lindelof can fvck right off, I've always preferred Bailly. The less said about Magwaya the better.

Oga, Bailey no get sense, you need to see him play 2 consecutive matches. Players on the bench are always better until you see them play for some minutes.

Expert17:
Any club with ambition won't have

- Anthony Martial as their no 1 Striker

- Lindelof and Magwuaya as their CB pairing

- DE Gea as their goal keeper

Also wont have OGS as their manager.

CapitalCee:
I said this at half time, our defence is too shaky, someone said its nerves, look at the kind of space they are leaving for Southampton players, I swear a good attacking team will score us plenty of goals.

First of all, we should not have conceded the first goal........Sou's high press was something else in the first 10-15 mins, we should have avoided passing from the back at least for the first 10-15 mins.

After we had tried to manage the situation, baba OGS decided to remove the chief creator.

I don tire sef!

chidexxy007:
You don See Space to rant, since those consecutive wins person Been dey find u here like pin.

Who the fuvk are you?

After the consecutive wins, no 5th una still dey? Why raise the hopes of the fans only to dash it with no sense of pity?

odizeey:
You can't remove three reliable machines just like that na. And the game was hard. He thought it was energy that Southampton was using. Them been dey use sense. They were technical.

Yes now. And we were containing them until the dolt decided to remove Pogba. I know P6 was a bit shaky in the first half, but against a hungry Sou side, we needed him to orchestrate one more goal before the substitution.

Nobody is even castigating Bruno for his inaccurate passes.

When we said that the boy needs to calm down, they said we should shut up. Calculated risk over guesswork abeg.

11 draws in a season, highest level of stup1dity and uselessness.

OGS will just sit down there thinking he is the new Ferguson.

Rubb1sh!

olabode89:
It was!


Bruno, Pogba, AWB and Shaw were mostlikely tired... they were making tired decisions....

what is the use of Maguire if he cannot win headers from corners sef.... which kind rubbish be this.

Oga, you dont know what you are saying. Maguire won several headers today so that your excuse no make sense.

odizeey:
Na like this Ole won play UCL?

Ole sold this game.

It's on him. Totally on him.

Thank you for saying it as it is. Some people just think players will always make things happen even if the manager is stup1d with his decisions.

Skimpledawg:
Thats where you scummies belong

I agree. That's where we belong. We have had so many opportunities to go above you guys this season, but then something stup1d must happen.

olabode89:
I was saying it.... we needed to rotate the squad... they looked tired!

No be rotation issue please.